5 ms·
> Well, so could the linux developers by relicensing to MIT. The majority of the zfs sources are owned by Oracle, one entity. The linux kernel has many copyrig
by dmm 11y ago
> Well, so could the linux developers by relicensing to MIT.
The majority of the zfs sources are owned by Oracle, one entity. The linux kernel has many copyright owners and it would require the permission of nearly all of them to relicense the kernel. That makes it a different situation.
- ryao 11y agoThat might no longer be true. There has been an enormous amount of development since Oracle killed OpenSolaris, such that Oracle is unlikely to remain the majority copyright holder in the future and at some point, there will be no majority copyright holder. That might have already happened. So far, no one has checked.
- d_b 11y agoyes, lets all base our understandings on shaky legal speculation.
- ryao 11y ago> yes, lets all base our understandings on shaky legal speculation. That is what the SFC did when it suggested that Oracle was unilaterally capable of changing the license of ZFSOnLinux.
- d_b 11y agoAnd by your logic, also what Canonical did. Wee! Why are you still commenting with legal speculation? You realise your name is attached to it, and you are potentially liable for misleading people?
- ryao 11y agoIf I could go back in time and change what I have written, I would correct a few typos, but leave everything I said otherwise unchanged. That being said, it is clear that your account was made for the sole purpose of replying to me. Would you care to put your name behind your comments in a manner that can be independently verified? I have trouble viewing those that do not distinguish themselves from anonymous trolls as anything but anonymous trolls.